Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now? - Page 16

What, so now you want to try and use a overpriced 20" set that nobody wanted, to try and prove your point? Sorry, it's not working. Most people want bigger sets not smaller. And that's why some were were willing to pay $10K for the very first 50" 1080P plasmas. Not to mention all plasma sets of all sizes in 720P were also way more expensive back then than they are now! The first 50"+ OLED will probably command a very high price, and I have no doubt that there will be more than just a few people more than willing to pay it. But just try to sell them a very high priced 20" set and see what happens.

Give your GF a High Five for me.

I am one of those people who could care less for 3D movies. It pisses me off to have to pay extra to see something at the theater that I don't care about.

I also enjoy watching TV without the HD factor. Jeez. It's TV already. If people want to see great high definition, go to the mountains and look at the scenery there. It can't be beat.

You are not taking into account a few facts:

1. This TV is an Auto 3D TV. That means 3D with no glasses

2. Japanese homes are smaller then USA homes so their displays tend to be smaller

3. It is cutting edge technology which the Japanese people on the whole like.

Give her a high five for her apparent lack of depth perception? If she literally couldn't tell the difference she essentially has an incurable medical condition, akin to color blindness. That's a shame, not something to celebrate.

Finding ONE website that is both out of stock of that product and not rated by the Better Business Bureau is not a valid point.

It is also unfortunate those finding pleasure in the use of double-talk are often found in forums such as these. It is best to simply ignore them rather than to respond and feed their egos and instead continue the exchange of opinions with others who are more serious.

To me, the current 3D wave is just another marketing bonanza. Now the manufacturers can sell a new generation of televisions just after the saturation of 1080P sets is fulfilled, and the movie studios can churn out even more titles, regardless of quality. "Little Red Riding Hood" horror movie in 3D? Please.

I've always joked that the 3D phase was created to make up for the lack of depth in the actual plots. Eye-candy replaces brain-candy.

She was probably focusing more on the depth of the story than the depth of the imagery.

You are absolutely correct. Next time don't say "3DTVs cost a lot more then HDTVs." That way your words won't come back to haunt you.

Samsung sees big jump in 3-D TV sales in 2011


http://www.usatoday.com/tech/product...p%20Stories%29

It's also a 20" TV, nobody wants a very high priced 20" TV! And honestly, 3D on a 20" TV no matter how it is done, is kind of a waste.

And I'll bet, even the high tech loving Japanese people rejected it for those very same reasons as well.

And what does Gary say in his opening remarks in the interview?

"3D is not for everyone."

And because that is a true statement, those that think that 3D is going to take over content . . . have nothing to worry about.

LOL regarding number 2.

Do you even know that Japan have the highest per-capita in the ownership of JBL Everest speakers? It's the same group of people that is willing to pay high dollars on autostereoscopy and 20" just don't cut it for these people wih space and money.

That shows how much you don't know about Japan.

Furthermore, the biggest selling size for TV is between 32" to 40", 20" will NOT entice anybody.

Before you reply saying "what JBL Everest has to do with 3DTV", it's to disprove youe point that Japanese only have small homes. JBL Everest is gigantic in size.

1. What do speakers have to do with televisions? Please keep the goal posts where they are will you David?

2. The TV we are discussing is ONLY available in Japan.

Your connect-the-dots argument is skewed. Sure I agree the size is small. So did Toshiba totally ignore this when they went to production?

So nobody watches TV on their laptops do they? They aren't releasing 3D laptops are they?

LOL - sorry - too late!

AVERAGE SIZED DWELLING IN JAPAN

http://www.demographia.com/db-japan-own.htm


What is the average home size in the U.S.?

http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/us-home-size.html

It rears it's head about every 20 years or so since it's inception. It doesn't seem to really change or advance with technology.

3D is not needed as camera's do a great job showing dept with focus techniques. It's a fad and it will be gone again. I think 3Dtv's are not a very good investment but that's just me.

Sure it has. We have gone from Anaglyph 3D to Full Color High Res. 3D. Big change. First time the images you see in your home are very similiar to those you see in a theater.

Only when they shoot long distance. Shoot a close up and there is no depth of field. Anything behind the actor being shot will be totally out of focus.

I think you may be in the minority on that one.

Once I switched to HD, I only watch SD channels when absolutely necessary.

I'm only using the definition of the word "fad", which is easily retrieved from the dictionary. Simple definition of terms. If terms have no agreed upon meaning then communication itself is futile.


My hypothetical was not meant to be realistic, only meant to make the point that a fad by definition is temporary after some early level of high interest is displayed. Of course 3D will not remain at the current level which implies zero growth.

The point is if it "remains" in use as feature, remains in consistent use by major studio on blockbuster movie releases, continues to get support from major game publishers, continues to get even a small but steady stream of 3D blu-ray releases then it by definition it would not be temporary ergo, not a "FAD".

What many posters have said in this thread is that they either are not personally interested in 3D or that they don't like it for one reason or the other. Perfectly fine points to make, but does not the tell us that 3D will be a FAD or not. Of course it's meant to say "I don't like it, therefore it's going to be a FAD" as reflected in the vote totals however in reality it answers a different question than the one as stated.

There are many technologies and trends I have little interest in and even dislike but I also would not call them a fad. I understand that they have a market segment or interest group that will sustain them without my participation.

I would say 3d has a ways to go before it is mainstream. More content would help, but it isn't a "must buy" feature and requires too much revamping of gear to gain a foothold.

The price differential for a 3d set is also a set back for the average consumer. For example, I could get a brand new 42" samsung LED LCD for $999 or get the 3d version for $2100 (those were the first two hits on BB). Now, for the extra grand, I could get a new receiver, speakers, a PS3, .... Money is tight right now, 3d isn't essential and isn't cost effective for the consumer.

As Mr. Stewart has pointed out several times, the more recent introduction of 3DTV is indeed "new" not just in recent technical improvement but more so it is "new" to the mainstream consumer market. 3D is "new" in it's widespread distribution into the supply chain and availability for the average consumer.

Holographic technology has existed already now for years but rest assured that if consumer devices were released at Best Buy playing major movies and games in holographic format it's introduction would be effectively "new" to the market.

I'm NOT talking about AVERAGE sized dwelling in Japan. Sigh, there you have no clue on how high the dedicated home theatre market in Japan, Indonesia, Singapore. etc and you just "average" everything. Your knowledge is only based on internet links. Do you have clientelles in Japan and other countries?

The average income in Indonesia is (IIRC) about less than US$10,000 a year, but if you know what Vertu is, the highest NUMBER of sales of Vertu in the world is not in the US, but in Indonesia.

I'm unsubscribing from this thread because as anybody can on this thread can attest, your purpose in following this thread is to win an argument regardless how ridiculous it is.

Just one final reality check for you: Toshiba's 20" autostereoscopy IS NOT and HAVE NEVER BEEN intended to be sold to the AVERAGE market. So your argument about AVERAGE house size is MOOT.

You have obviously missed the point. Doesn't surprise me.

What does a luxury mobil phone have to do with televisions?

OK.

I never said it did. Just another case of you not understanding what I am saying. Instead of asking me to clarify it, you jump all over me. Again, no surprise here.

David, please don't unsubscribe from this thread. Your thoughts and opinions are interesting, informative and well presented. We're all subjected to the same infantile ramblings and so do not deny yourself the opportunity to participate in a friendly, enjoyable debate and exchange of ideas with others.

Here to stay ONLY when eyeglasses not necessary anymore. Otherwise, it's doomed. I don't wear glasses in everyday life, and I certainly don't want to wear some for 2 hours to watch a movie.

Which might be the case since glasses-free 3D television has a long way to go before it is perfected and cost-efficient - if ever. In the attached article, the Sony prototype looked quite good although at this early stage the screen is accompanied by quite a bulky piece of luggage.

Again, if restricted to higher-priced sets, 3D could still develop a healthy niche following but not popularity as far as the mainstream is concerned.

http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/articl...eeds-time-oven

Heheh, she looked at me real funny when I burst into the room to slap her a high five. Considering she was drifting off....lol

Sometimes I agree with her. I used to purchase all HD material. After a while I realized I only needed certain movies in HD. It is not worth the extra cost. Transformers, Chronicles of Riddick, tech stuff should be viewed in HD. Dramas and stuff like that should remain in SD where it belongs. Such a huge waste of money for such a small difference in details you get lost on anyway. A good movie will have you immersed in the storyline without the need for hyped up effects. Maybe movie creators need to step up to the plate and stop hiding behind gimmicks.

I know I have went on the record saying 3D is a gimmick. When it stops acting like one and is used seriously, with merit, I will change my opinion. Until then it remains, not a fad, but a NICHE market.

To be fair to her Coraline was a failure as far as 3D goes. The story sucked pretty hard too.

I think she gets into the movies much deeper (emotionally) than I do. Thus, she is not paying attention to the smaller details. I am not so sure it is a physical condition. It seems more an apparent lack of concern for anything but the story being told. She has a highly attuned radar for movies that suck. She is much quicker at calling it than I am. I will 98% of the time agree with her and stop the movie.

If something is 3D, I spend time in the movie looking for the effects. She would rather spend time dissecting the story. It would sometimes seem I might be the one with the "condition". Considering, I remember less of movies that have more effects. I spend more time staring at them than seeing if the movie sucks. Does it have plot holes? How are people connected? Those type of details are sometimes lost in movies smathered with effects/CGI.

Action/Effects/Gimmicks are all used in stories. Most of the time, to be just, to accentuate the plot. Sometimes, it seems more often in the past 10 years, those items are used to cover up poor story, direction, and acting.

Feel the same way with my vast collection of movies. It is so vast only because a great deal of films are dubbed from HD stations onto a DVD-R which costs about 35 cents usually for two movies per disc. It's worth the trade-off in picture quality which is still quite good and satisfying, I would say about an eight on a scale of 1-10 compared to the original HD source (a softer picture but the color detail is about the same). The signal is down-converted to 480i but input using S-video, not a RCA cable, so a higher quality signal is being fed to our recorder, a Panasonic, which is noted for it's great recording capability even at four hours. The disc is then up-converted via HDMI which enhances playback greatly.

Films like "Lawrence of Arabia", "Inception" and rare titles found on specialty labels I of course do buy on commercial discs.

So there is a parallel between that and 3D - the cost savings.

I felt the same way she does with "Inception". At first I was looking forward to the special effects but as I became more and more involved with the story, the special effects and extended action scenes took away from my enjoyment and I couldn't wait for the scene to end in order to return to the story and script. BTW - I loved Coroline but heard that the 3D took away from the color and other aspects of well done animation. That's the other drawback - 3D cuts down on the other quality aspects of the source.